Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The parties married in 1993; in 2007 Wife sought dissolution. After the court declined to enforce a 2008 purported marital settlement Agreement, it held a 15-day trial, reconsidered its previous ruling and entered judgment incorporating the Agreement. On remand, the trial court rejected Husband’s request that the court value certain community assets as of the 2012/2013 trial date and assign certain real properties to him. The court ordered that the properties be appraised and sold; it characterized one property, “La Madrona,” as partially Husband’s separate property, despite the parties’ prior stipulation that it was a community asset subject to Husband’s right to reimbursement of separate property funds used for its purchase. The court found that Husband used presumptively community funds to make a $600,000 equalization payment to Wife under the Agreement, thus requiring Wife to reimburse Husband only half of that amount. Determining neither party to be credible, the court denied numerous other claims, including Husband’s request for Epstein credits based on his alleged payment of certain community expenses following the parties’ separation. The court of appeal upheld the order for appraisal and sale of the real properties, and the denial of Husband’s request for Epstein credits. Husband did not object in the trial court to the characterization of the $600,000 payment as being from a community source. The trial court erred in characterizing La Madrona as partially Husband’s separate property given the parties’ stipulation. View "Oliverez v. Oliverez" on Justia Law

This case involved a divorced, elderly couple who each requested a restraining order against the other. The trial court granted both requests and ex-husband appealed.The court affirmed and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against ex-husband, because there was substantial evidence of his past acts toward ex-wife, which constituted threatening and harassing behavior; "dwelling" in Welfare and Institutions Code 15657.03, subdivision (b)(4)(B), encompasses the residence, i.e., apartment unit of the protected person, and not the entire apartment building; the trial court's issuance of the DVRO and elder abuse restraining order (EARO) did not amount to mutual restraining orders that required specific findings of fact; and, although ex-wife's attachment of a confidential custody evaluation report to her appellate belief was sanctionable conduct, the court refrained from imposing sanctions as it would create an unreasonable financial burden on her. View "Herriott v. Herriott" on Justia Law

Appellant C.T. (Mother) appealed an order changing primary physical custody of her minor son, A.B. to A.B.’s father, respondent R.B. (Father), in Arkansas. A.B. lived with Mother since his birth in 2006; Mother and Father separated in 2007. The trial court entered a final child custody order in 2010, with Mother’s home ordered A.B.’s primary residence. In 2011, Father moved from California to Arkansas and lived with his parents. In 2017, Mother and Father both requested sole physical custody of A.B. Mother contended Father failed to meet his burden of establishing that moving A.B. to Arkansas would not cause detriment to A.B., and that the change in physical custody was in A.B.’s best interests. After review of the specific facts of this case, the Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the child custody order awarding Father primary physical custody. View "In re the Marriage of C.T. and R.B." on Justia Law

Upon ending their marriage, respondent Craig Martin (husband) agreed to pay appellant Cynthia Martin (wife) spousal support for a period of four years. After discovering that wife had remarried, husband stopped paying spousal support and requested reimbursement of the total amount he had paid since her remarriage. The trial court granted husband’s request and entered an order requiring wife to repay $27,000, plus $2,700 in attorney fees. Wife challenged the postjudgment order arguing that husband’s spousal support obligation did not terminate by operation of law upon her remarriage because the parties had agreed in writing that Family Code section 4337 would not apply. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with wife and reversed the order of the trial court. View "Marriage of Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant Elizabeth Wong appealed nonappealable orders and the trial court erred by staying its proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a). The Court of Appeal remanded this case for: (1) the trial court to proceed immediately with a trial on the merits; and (2) the trial court to exercise close scrutiny of any additional appellate stays of trial posited by appellant based on appeals from orders entered prior to a final disposition of the merits in this dispute. View "Marriage of Wong" on Justia Law

Appellant F.C. (mother) appealed a juvenile court’s order removing her four children from her custody Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s findings that the previous placement with her was ineffective in protecting or rehabilitating the children and that removing the children from her custody was necessary to prevent substantial danger to them. She also argued the court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to removal. After review of the specific facts of this case, the Court of Appeal concluded substantial evidence supported the court’s findings and dispositional order as to the supplemental petitions. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment. View "In re D.D." on Justia Law

After mother asked her doctor to help her stop using cocaine, the doctor referred the family to DCFS. The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court correctly asserted jurisdiction over mother and daughter based on mother's admitted use of cocaine and a reckless driving conviction mother sustained shortly before the dependency proceedings commenced. In this case, mother gave conflicting stories about the length and extent of her substance abuse, successfully hid her substance abuse from her relatives so as not to disappoint them, continued to test positive for cocaine even after the detention hearing, and had not enrolled in a substance abuse program by the June 28, 2018 adjudication hearing. View "In re L.W." on Justia Law

A person with autism is not automatically a candidate for a limited conservatorship. The Court of Appeal affirmed an order establishing a limited conservatorship of O.B., a person with autism spectrum disorder, and appointing her mother and elder sister as conservators. In this case, the court held that substantial evidence supported the establishment of a limited conservatorship of O.B.'s person where the mother testified that O.B. lacked the capacity to perform some of the tasks necessary to provide properly for her own personal needs. Furthermore, the probate court's personal observations of O.B. contributed to the substantial evidence in support of its findings. The court also held that the probate court did not violate principles of conservatorship law where it considered O.B.'s personal preferences, and the probate court did not prejudge the case. View "Conservatorship of O.B." on Justia Law

Assuming fraudulent intent, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, formerly known as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), can apply to a premarital agreement in which the prospective spouses agree that upon marriage each spouse's earnings, income, and other property acquired during marriage will be that spouse's separate property. In this case, plaintiff obtained a judgment in bankruptcy court against defendant. Plaintiff alleged a single cause of action under UFTA to set aside the alleged transfer of defendant's community property interest in the wife's earnings and income.The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer and found that defendants were entitled to alter the presumptions under Family Code 760 and Family Code 910 that property acquired during the marriage is community property and that the community estate would be liable to satisfy any judgments against defendant. The Court of Appeal reversed in light of the legislative language, history, and the strong policy of protecting the creditors from fraudulent transfers. Therefore, the court held that the Legislature must have intended that UFTA can apply to premarital agreements in which the prospective spouses agree that each spouse’s earnings, income, and property acquired during marriage will be that spouse's separate property. View "Sturm v. Moyer" on Justia Law

In this divorce proceeding involving disputes over the characterization of community property assets, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not err by adopting husband's tracing, which was adequate and satisfied his burden of proving his separate property. The court also held that the trial court's findings that husband did not breach fiduciary duties when he used community property funds to establish an irrevocable life insurance trust for the benefit of the children were supported by substantial evidence.The court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it retrospectively modified 2014 pendente lite child and spousal support, because it based the modification on the parties' 2013 tax returns, rather than their 2014 tax returns, which were then available. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded for recalculation of the awards and the spousal support award. View "Marriage of Ciprari" on Justia Law